Everything the writer says is true, provided the child is born healthy. A child with physical or mental handicaps would require far more resources of every kind than can be provided by one person, and would perhaps eliminate the single parent's ability to work and provide. So that's a crapshoot (as, indeed, it is for every parent). Also, the writer seems curiously cold about the possibility of living with another, as such partnerships require give-and-take and compromise. That's apparently one important life lesson that wasn't learned from a single parent. Can it be done? Yes. But I would hope this writer investigates her own life experience, and tries to broaden it a bit, before making such an important decision.

Quote

As a professional, smart, capable woman, I am financially independent and if I bring a man in the picture, he has to have a positive impact - not just opening the wallet, but rather, be supportive, caring, respectful, collaborative, etc. Unless I can find that, I believe that it will be better for my children to have only me as mother, and not the negative impact that a father will bring. The higher quality the woman, the higher the bar for the man in order to have a net positive impact on the family. That's all it is, in my experience.

Quote

There is a large trend in the U.S. of single professional women deciding to have a family on their own. Most of these women are financially stable professional women, hence there is no poverty issue. There is a study that was done on how well the children did, and they did much better than average. In fact, the single most important factor in a child's success is the success of his mother. There is a strong correlation between the two, but no so much between the success of a child and his father's. There 2 main reasons for that: 1) genetics: the intelligence gene is passed on the X chromosome, a boy only gets one X chromosome from his mother (Y chromosome from the father), hence if the mother is smart, the boy will be smart, and the girl will be smart if the father is as well. But there is a dependency on the mother in all cases. 2) women, even professional women, are in the large majority of cases the main care takers of the children. Hence if the mothers are lazy, disorganized, irresponsible, have no work ethic, etc, this is what the child will learn. A lot of housewives have no concept of deadlines, and often rely on their husbands to take care of many things, hence don't teach children how to take charge. On the other hand, a single professional mother has to do it all, be organized, responsible, professional, take charge of the house hold, etc and this is what the children are learning. I know it is not what men want to hear, but let's be honest, there are so many disadvantages that women have to face in the work place, we don't get nearly the credit we deserve. When it comes to kids, it's almost all us who determine the outcome of our offsprings. So in my view, if I am going to have a child with a man, then he has to bring something positive to the equation. And I'm not talking about just money - which is what most man think their only job is. I have money, so the man has to be supportive, collaborative, smart, caring, respectful, etc Men with big egos, who are not supportive and expect the woman to do their laundry, cooking and grocery shopping are bringing nothing positive to my life, so I believe it is in the children's best interest to have not such man.

That's "rein", BTW. Not "reign". Women need reining-in. With reins. Monarchs may be reigning. A monarch may reign. Clouds sometimes cause it to be raining. They can signify the chance of rain. Like, anybody cares, anymore, anyway, how to spell same-sounding words that have entirely different meanings (:>

I agree. Many (most) women could benefit from being reined-in, or being reined-in. They simply don't know, any more, that being a woman entails actually being one.

That time has passed along with the age of abundance, surplus and plenty. Enter creeping scarcity and increased hardship. Watch even this minority of independent women, enabled by government legislative and bureaucratic bloat, look again to men for physical security and material support as the unsustainable foundations of modernity rot away.

As a younger woman myself, I can agree that most women need reining in - actually, most people do. The average person is a shallow idiot.

I might also add that the trendy "career woman" thing is a result of Westerners living in an industrialized capitalist world. What we call "gender roles" developed in a pre-industrial world where everything was physical. As men and women have bodies suited for different physical jobs, the gender roles developed according to that. There was really no concept of a "labor market" that needed single women in it. Men would hunt for food and plow the fields, women would raise the kids and do the less physically demanding jobs. For a woman, the idea of "having a career" was unattractive, not because women were more virtuous at that time or any retarded bullshit like that, but simply because work needed a relentless physical input that was beyond the strength of women. But in the modern industrial world, getting women out of the home and into the workplace is no big deal. The shit called "work" is done in centrally heated offices, in front of computers. In this push-button world we live in, male strength is simply not needed in the high-income jobs. Women can do these tasks just as easily. Hence, career women and feminism.

It describes how in the Netherlands women almost exclusively work part time and don't want more hours.

She sees evidence that being a power hungry tard isn't the only methodology for "happiness" but fails to see that the dutch women are happy doing this because they HAVE A HUSBAND that is the primary bread winner.

As a younger woman myself, I can agree that most women need reining in - actually, most people do. The average person is a shallow idiot.

I might also add that the trendy "career woman" thing is a result of Westerners living in an industrialized capitalist world. What we call "gender roles" developed in a pre-industrial world where everything was physical. As men and women have bodies suited for different physical jobs, the gender roles developed according to that. There was really no concept of a "labor market" that needed single women in it. Men would hunt for food and plow the fields, women would raise the kids and do the less physically demanding jobs. For a woman, the idea of "having a career" was unattractive, not because women were more virtuous at that time or any retarded bullshit like that, but simply because work needed a relentless physical input that was beyond the strength of women. But in the modern industrial world, getting women out of the home and into the workplace is no big deal. The shit called "work" is done in centrally heated offices, in front of computers. In this push-button world we live in, male strength is simply not needed in the high-income jobs. Women can do these tasks just as easily. Hence, career women and feminism.

I don't know, I work a physically intensive job and there are plenty of women who I work with who can do it as well as long as they're in decent shape. I think the real reason many women began working in the first place was because of economic necessity - as the standard of living continues to fall for most in the Western world, having a household where only one partner works is just impractical. Both partners needed to be bringing in income to fund the suburban McMansion, expensive oil, skyrocketing college tuition for kids, etc against mostly stagnant wage levels.

The reasons for the "end of men" social trend are pretty simple: feminism has created in women a much stronger drive to "prove themselves" (in materialistic terms) than exists in the modern man. You can manipulate the masses into doing a great many things once you learn how to tickle their little ego. Serving the system is now an imperative to any self-respecting Western woman who wants to remain without an unbruised self-image. Being a "slave to the patriarchy" (read: being relatively free of the capitalist system) is to be a gender traitor and a sell-out. To be a docile slave of capitalism is to be radical revolutionary, and a heroine of the female cause.

It's all very pathetic, but if men were manipulated in the same way, we'd see similar results with them. Women aren't more stupid or gullible, we're just victims of smarter propaganda, and this is only because the historical conditions for feminism were just right. Because there was actually a lot of misogyny at that time.

I don't know, I work a physically intensive job and there are plenty of women who I work with who can do it as well as long as they're in decent shape. I think the real reason many women began working in the first place was because of economic necessity - as the standard of living continues to fall for most in the Western world, having a household where only one partner works is just impractical.

The standard of living in the Western world is still the highest on the planet. We could do without the SUV, the flat-screen TV, the McMansion, and all the other plastic crap that the average idiot feels he absolutely needs.

It is pretty interesting that a lot of feminist "arguments" are based around women being able to either A) Buy shit without judgement B) Have enough pay to buy shit. Is this all we are now?

Instead of family: A boring desk job you got with your liberal arts degree that you secretly hate.

Instead of finding love: Liberate yourself through standing at a bar or go dancing at a crowded club long enough for a guy to come around in order to pump and dump you.

Instead of cherishing a home and nurturing: Depressing apartments with the scent of multiple cats and boxed wine.

Women forsake the True Good for illusions and flashing signs. To be fair, men do this as well, however, women seem to have bought into far more.

I seriously cannot think of a single issue that Western women, especially ones that are not poor, face that needs an entire movement to "fight for them". Western women are some of the most coddled, protected and privileged groups on the face of the planet.

Phoenix

I seriously cannot think of a single issue that Western women, especially ones that are not poor, face that needs an entire movement to "fight for them". Western women are some of the most coddled, protected and privileged groups on the face of the planet.

How old are you? Because not long ago women didn't have the vote, and physical and psychological abuse was commonplace and implicitly condoned by government and law enforcement. The laws may have changed, but get real, attitudes don't change so quickly.

Furthermore all this trauma means there's been a severe lack of healthy mother figures, and the trauma's resulting dysfunction tends to get passed down from mother to daughter. It still impacts today's woman.

I may not agree with everything feminism stands for, but hell, I have much higher targets on my hit list.

It describes how in the Netherlands women almost exclusively work part time and don't want more hours.

She sees evidence that being a power hungry tard isn't the only methodology for "happiness" but fails to see that the dutch women are happy doing this because they HAVE A HUSBAND that is the primary bread winner.

Some of the comments on this page are also hilarious.

"at times I think [European women] look down on people for wanting a Maserati to enjoy life with.."

Because a Maserati is incredibly important to happiness. I didn't enjoy life until I bought my Maserati (I can't drive, but I still like to look at all that $$SUCCESS$$ before I walk to the train station every morning).

I seriously cannot think of a single issue that Western women, especially ones that are not poor, face that needs an entire movement to "fight for them". Western women are some of the most coddled, protected and privileged groups on the face of the planet.

How old are you? Because not long ago women didn't have the vote, and physical and psychological abuse was commonplace and implicitly condoned by government and law enforcement. The laws may have changed, but get real, attitudes don't change so quickly.

Furthermore all this trauma means there's been a severe lack of healthy mother figures, and the trauma's resulting dysfunction tends to get passed down from mother to daughter. It still impacts today's woman.

I may not agree with everything feminism stands for, but hell, I have much higher targets on my hit list.

When I typed that out, I'm referring to *now*. 2012. Women do not have any major issues they have to worry about that aren't avoidable by not being a moron.

and why is women having the right to vote a good thing, necessarily?

Oh and abuse and violence towards men has always been higher at every single point in history.